Posted on 04/03/2003 3:49:57 PM PST by Tomalak
I AM IMMENSELY FEARFUL of those who are now arguing that the Bush Administration should put as much effort and vigour into bringing peace between Israel and the Palestinians as it did in fighting Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. My fear is not just that it sounds so reasonable at first sight, but also at the way in which even people on the Right are quite willing to concede to this sort of reasoning.
Of course, the difference between pacifying Iraq and pacifying Palestine is that while no sane person in this country blames anyone but Saddam Hussein for his terror and wars, when it comes to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, everyone in enlightened circles now blames not the government-backed Palestinian terrorists who make a peaceful settlement that does not threaten Israel's survival impossible, but Israel herself, for defending against such people. What is meant by "applying equal vigour" is not dealing with Palestinian terrorists the way Saddam's threat was dealt with, but bullying Israel into accepting a 'peace' settlement irrespective of its terms.
When it comes to Israel, the strategy of blaming the victim is second nature to our liberal elite. They don't recognise or care that both a Palestinian and an Israeli state is not compatible with the likes of Yasser Arafat remaining in power. What they see as 'peace' would be a nightmare for Israel to which the US, Britain and no European country would ever agree for themselves - a full neighbouring Palestinian state with its borders protected by international troops, free to arm for further conflict and to launch constant terrorist attacks on Israel in the mean time. Handled wrongly, the 'road map for peace' could literally mean Israel's destruction.
Dealing with the Middle East conflict the way she dealt with Afghanistan and Iraq would mean America going into the Palestinian Authority, killing all the terrorists and kicking Arafat's despicable, kleptocratic regime out of power. What is proposed instead is equivalent to the rest of the world forcing the US to accept Taliban control of Canada in the midst of terrorist attacks on American soul, in one final hope that this concession, this carrot, this one last act of appeasement, will be enough.
There is an inherent flaw in appeasement which ensures it cannot work. It can be expressed economically, even if the resources in question are not money. It is that if you reward someone for doing something, for acting in a particular way - if you subside terrorism and aggression - then you encourage it and get more of it. The fundamental problem with every negotiated settlement with an aggressor is the contradiction of rewarding his wrong-doing on the one hand and asking that he stop it on the other. If every inch of ground Arafat has gained is through terrorism, then what possible incentive does he have after this to give up on terror? Because it rewards deliberate malice, appeasement is worse even than bailing out a lame duck industry, which merely means rewarding involuntary incompetence.
What if the Palestinians refuse to implement a particular part of the recommendations? We already know what it will mean from our own shameful experience in Northern Ireland - demands in every case that Israel take "one last step for peace", with concession after concession given without the peace itself ever arriving. If there is one lesson to be learned from the Good Friday Agreement, it is that in these peace settlements, the democracy must not meet all of its own commitments first, and then just rely on the terrorists' goodwill to get the benefits in return.
Ending terrorism even for a short time would be a good thing - though don't count on Arafat implementing it - but it can be reversed in a second. A grant of statehood to the Palestinians is a bargaining diamond whose reversal would require an invasion certain to be condemned worldwide. Israel would therefore be crazy to agree to any Palestinian state if she could not be sure of safety from terrorist attacks launched from this state. Ensuring this means peace first, Palestinian statehood second. It means democracy for the Palestinians, free and fair elections, and an end to any government by terrorists, for if the Palestinians elect such people in free and fair elections, then clearly they do not want peace. Nothing I have seen of the road map for peace suggests that this is the course that will be followed.
I reject the call for a Palestinian state in the most strident of terms. If they can live in peace as a territory for five years, stop indoctrinating their children to be suicide bombers, stop teaching them that Israelis are monkeys or worse, stop calling for a second Holocaust, stop vilifying Israel at every opportunity, THEN AND ONLY THEN should the prospect of statehood be raised.
If the Palestinians cannot peform this, isn't the slightest bit interested in living in peace, then kick them off the West Bank and Gaza. Raize their settlements and forget about them. The end.
This has gone on long enough. In 1948 Israel and the Palestinians were given land in which to set up a state. Israel complied. The Palestinians didn't. It's been 55 friggen years and the Palestinains still can't give peace a go. No need to wait 1000 years to figure this out. They never will. Accept it.
Yasser Arafat has singlehandedly masterminded the Palestinian state into something that will NEVER exist. I only say that because it is abundantly clear, that state would NEVER live in peace beside Israel.
Iran is going to fall to internal revolution, just from the crossborder gossip from Afghanistan and Iraq. The new generation is fed up with the Mullahs.
Syria is going down because it's a Bathist regime and we can't hope to stabilize Iraq till the Bathists are through everywhere. Our forces will already be on the ground, next door, so it won't take any big political investment for "border incursions" to escalate into regime change.
With Iraq, Iran and Syria in friendly hands, we can impose a "Palestinian State" that is going to be very very different from anything Arafat would ever imagine.
Jordan and Lebanon will have to do as they are told.
On to North Korea.
So9
I also have to say I think regime change in Syria imposed by the US Army seems very unlikely.
When we have most of the Middle Eastern population in our hands, we can cut off not so much the money, as the arms and material for the Palestinians. Homicide bombers are orders of magnitude less common and less lethal if they have to grind their own black powder than if they can just get the blocks of plastique from the Syrians.
Elimination of Syria will also mean an end to terrorist rocket attacks from Lebanon or the threat of them.
When the PLO does not have the leverage of violence, it will be a lot simpler to resettle the Palestinians out of the squalid camps the Arab world has kept them in for political purposes.
Given a real choice, I think most will opt for moving to Syria and Jordan. There will be a small powerless "Palestinian State" for political correctness, and so we can claim to have solved the problem.
SO9
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.